Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sabyasachi Mukharji and B.C. Ray, JJ.
Madhu Mehta - Petitioner
versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 216 of 1989
Decided on 9-8-1989
Held: It is well - settled now that undue long delay in execution of the sentence of death would entitle the condemned person to approach this Court or to be approached under Article 32 of the Constitution, but this Court would only examine the nature of delay caused and circumstances that ensued after sentence was finally confirmed by the judicial process and will have no jurisdiction to reopen the conclusions reached by the court while finally maintaining the sentence of death. But the court is entitled and indeed obliged to consider the question of inordinate delay in the light of all circumstances of the case to decide whether the execution of sentence should be carried out or should be altered into imprisonment for life. No fixed period of delay can be considered to be decisive. It bas been emphasised that Article 21 is relevant in all stages. Speedy trial in criminal cases though may not be fundamental right, is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. Speedy trails part of one's fundamental right to life and liberty. This principle is no less important for disposal of Mercy Petition. It bas been universally recognised that a condemned person bas to suffer a degree of mental torture even though there is no physical mistreatment and no primitive torture. See the observations of Shetty, J. in Triveniben's case (supra) [1989-1 SCC 678] at p. 713-714 of the report, where it has been observed that as between funeral fire and mental worry, it is the latter which is more devastating, for, funeral fire bums only the dead body while the mental worry bums the living one. In the instant case, Gyasi Ram bas sufered a great deal of mental agony for over eight years. It is not disputed that there bas been long delay. We do not find. reasons sufficiently commensurate to justify such long delay. The convict bas suffered mental agony of living under the shadow of death for long, far too long. He should not suffer that agony any longer. (Para 3)
Held consequently: In the aforesaid facts and the circumstances of the case, therefore, we direct that the death sentence should not be carried out and the sentence imposed upon him be altered to imprisonment for life. We order accordingly.
(Para 4)
JUDGMENT
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. - This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by one Madhu Mehta, who is the National Convenor of Hindustani Andolan. This petition seeks a writ of Hebeas Corpus or an appropriate direction with regard to one Shri Gyasi Ram, S/o. Shri Paran aged above 60 years, who, it is claimed, bas been waiting decision on his Mercy Petition pending before the President of India for about 8 or 9 years. The said Gyasi Ram was at all relevant time lodged in "Death Cell, Central Jail" Jhansi having been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to death by the .learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi on October 19, 1978. It appears that Gyasi Ram was convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Session Judge, Jhansi on 19th October, 1978 for committing murder, which has been described by the Under-secretary (Judicial), Ministry of Home affairs, Government of India, as the cold blooded murder of a government servant, namely, Bhagwan Singh, who was the resident of Mauranipur Tehsil, in District Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh. There were arrears of land revenue due from Gyasi Ram and also one Mool Chand for the purpose of realising the said arrears of land revenue, their property was attached by Amin Bbagwan Singh and the same was put to sale by auction. The auction took place on 26th December, 1976 and after the auction while the said Amin was returning along with his Peon Sripat from village Kakwara after delivering the sale certificate to the auction purchaser, they were waylaid by Daya Ram (son of Mool Chand) and Gyasi Ram, the convicts involved in this case. In the evidence, it was stated that Daya Ram who was armed with pistol fired at the decased Amin Bhagwan Singh who fell down from his cycle. While Daya Ram held down Amin Bhagwan Singh, Gyasi Ram, the person about whom this petition is concerned, cut Bhagwan Singh's throat with the sword he was carrying and inflicted other injuries also. After this incident, both Daya Ram and Gyasi Ram, it has been stated, escaped. Gyasi Ram was, however, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to death, as mentioned hereinbefore. The death sentence was passed on Gyasi Ram by the learned Sessions Judge on 19th October, 1978. The Allahabad High Court confirmed this death sentence on 28th February, 1979. This Court dismissed his Criminal Appeal No. 362/79 on 17th March, 1981. Mercy Petition was filed by the wife of the convict to the President of India on 18th December, 1981. It appears that Mercy Petition has still not been disposed of. Daya Ram had absconded and could not be put on trial along with Gyasi Ram. It appears further that Gyasi Ram's Mercy Petitions dated 6th October, 1981 and 26th November, 1981 were rejected by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on the 26th November, 1981 and were received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on the 5th December, 1981 for the consideration of the President of India. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the Governement of India, it appears that after processing the case, the matter was put up before the President of India on 21st April, 1983 for his orders on the Mercy Petitions and that the President after examining the case file, returned the file on 30th July, 1983 for further consideration. While the Ministry of Home Affairs was processing the case of Gyasi Ram further, the intimation was received from this court on 13th November, 1984 that Daya Ram, son of Mool Chand had also filed a special leave Petition against the judgment dated 17th October, 1984, of the Allahabad High, Court by which the sentence of death was confirmed on him. It appears from the order of this Court dated 18th February, 1985 dismissing Daya Ram's Special Leave Petition that this Daya Ram was the same person who was Gyasi Ram’s partner in the crime as mentioned hereinbefore. Subsequently, two Mercy Petitions were filed on behalf of Daya Ram which were forwarded for the consideration of the Governor of Uttar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
